Replies

>>>>I do not believe that hardline Stalinists control Russia and are just waiting for the oppurtunity to take Russia back to her "glory" days

I have NO background history to speak interactively on this. I will say I am President of Rivne Regional Charitable Fund in the Ukraine (for funding only). I said yesterday on this thread that I'm on email newsletter mailings with regard to news of the Ukraine.

I'm guilty of merely skimming a few newsletters here and there and then popping them into a file folder.

But from just skimming a few now, I don't think you have enough information to make your statements on. Cause there were quite a few pieces I just found that make statements to the fact that there are still Stalin supporters that are in charge and trying to keep/take back control. I think the people in the Ukraine are in a better position to know than you.

Snippets:
>>>>>
The Soviet government does not allow photographs to be taken of the famine victims, does not allow foreign journalists to cover
what happens, does not allow international relief agencies to bring in food and medical supplies, does not allow artists, writers, poets, composers or anyone else to depict in anyway tragic events. The Soviet government strongly denies to the world that millions of people die as a direct result of the repressive political actions taken by Stalin's people and the Soviet government.
>>>>>>>>

Russia's position is clear: historically, the Azov [Sea] was part of the
Soviet Union's inland waters, Kalyuzhnyy said. "The positive experience of
jointly using the sea cannot be continued," he said. "Russia insists on this and now
that our peoples cannot sail and fish freely wherever it is allowed, so that no
existing border problems are created [as received]."

"We should be reasonable and take account of our experience, when we used
the water jointly and had no problems," Kalyuzhnyy said. "We are closing
borders down at a time when all of Europe is opening borders up. Neither the
economies, nor the peoples need this," he said. (END) (ARTUIS)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Kiev, 6 November: The Our Ukraine bloc, the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc and the
Socialist Party of Ukraine have said that "the current authorities led by
President [Leonid] Kuchma are assuming the character of a bandit
dictatorship". A statement issued by the three political forces said that
"the presidential administration, local state administrations and
law-enforcement bodies have been turned into a repression machine which is
used against political opponents".

"The entire country has seen that the authorities and security services have
long been used to persecute the opposition - the Socialists, the Yuliya
Tymoshenko Bloc, Our Ukraine and their leaders. The events in Donetsk of
29-31 October have become one of the examples of lawlessness, and shown to
entire Ukraine and the world community the face of the criminal regime which
is being established in Ukraine," the statement said.
>>>>>>>>>>

Kiev, 5 November: The government of Viktor Yanukovych "has not been
able to prevent the growth in the price of bread and bears responsibility,
together with the parliamentary majority that formed it, for the situation
that has arisen". This was said in a joint statement on the situation on the
food
market by the leaders of the Socialist Party (Oleksandr Moroz), Communist
Party (Petro Symonenko), Our Ukraine bloc (Viktor Yushchenko) and the
Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc.

The four faction leaders are demanding that the plenary session of the
Supreme Council [parliament] give "immediate consideration" to the situation
on the bread market with the compulsory involvement of Prime Minister
Viktor Yanukovych.

(snip)

"We are outraged that instead of resolving the food market crisis, the
authorities are busy inciting political tension, persecuting political
opponents and trying to deprive citizens of the right to elect their
leaders. All this is being done to distract citizens' attention away from
urgent social-economic problems. But the people want to know the truth
about bread," the statements says. (END) (ARTUIS)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Lots of mentions of the word Oligarchs too. They seem to associate that word with Stalin Followers.

But my background isn't good enough to follow all of this.

My point is still though, I don't think you have enough background about what may or may not be going on with Stalin followers. The Ukraine Reports contradict it.

New Newsletter came right after I posted this.

NOTICE how the Ukraine goes back and forth referring to Russia and Soviet Union. It implies to me that there are two governing bodies there.

ONE FREE-TRADE DEAL THAT WON'T FREE TRADE

WHEN is a free-trade agreement bad? When the treaty's
underlying purpose is neither about trade nor freedom.

Such a pact - calling for a 'united economic space' - is now
being entered into by Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus.

On the surface, a 'united economic space' sounds like something
to applaud. But, sadly, the treaty will only entrench communism's
corrupt and criminal business practices, not increase trade or prosperity.

A huge benefit for the accession countries in preparing
themselves to join the European Union (EU) was that they were forced to
conform to European business, political, and legal norms. The proposed
'united economic space' will also have its own norms - the ways of the
oligarch, the corrupt bureaucrat, the crony capitalist, and the politically
motivated prosecutor.

Does anyone doubt that the jailing of Mr Mikhail Khodorkovsky,
chairman of oil giant Yukos, is politically motivated? I myself have endured
numerous politically inspired investigations and prosecutions of my former
business as a means to drive me out of politics. Can anyone imagine such
a prosecution occurring in the EU?

That Mr Khodorkovsky is spending months in jail before he is
formally charged tells us much about the nature of business, politics,
and law in the nations of the Soviet Union.

In the countries of the 'united economic space', the rule of law
typically means 'I rule, and I am the law'. So, instead of promoting growth,
the 'united economic space' will retard it by discouraging competition and
investment.

Instead of enhancing European stability, it will undermine it by
dividing Europe into the EU's single market and an economic trading area
ruled by arbitrary fiat and decree.

But, as a matter of economic principle, practical diplomacy and
visionary politics, aren't regional free-trade areas at least a step in the
right direction?

After all, countries that scrap tariffs among themselves trade
more and often raise their economic growth rates as a result. Moreover,
free-trade agreements are typically seen as politically valuable: Countries
tied by commerce are supposedly less likely to shoot at each other.

Unfortunately, the 'united economic space' promises no such
benefits.

By definition, it discriminates against countries outside the
club, with which trade will not be liberalised. Members will specialise in
industries in which they lack comparative advantage, undercutting the
main reason to support free trade in the first place. Worse yet, markets
will be carved up for political, not commercial, reasons, locking in
inefficiencies.

The 'political' argument - that regional trade bodies promote
peaceful foreign relations - is simply wrong-headed in the Soviet case.

After all, Ukraine managed to eliminate its nuclear weapons and
reach accommodation over the Black Sea fleet without joining a private
economic bloc with Russia.

On the other hand, not long after the 'united economic space'
was announced, Russia began to cast covetous eyes on the Ukrainian Black
Sea island of Tuszla. Economic borders cannot and will not disappear until
Russia and Ukraine agree on their territorial borders.

Because the proposed members of this new 'united economic space'
share Russian as a lingua franca and a common past within the Soviet Union, outsiders may dismiss too readily subtler differences in
culture, outlook, and even vocabulary. Because the region shares many
outward forms of European culture, it is a short step to assuming that
recent moves to free markets and democracy will be seamless and permanent.

But the 'united economic space' is also a perversion because the
presence of Belarus and Kazakhstan will ensure that democracy remains
low on the agenda.

Another perversion of democracy is the fact that the
supra-national body that is to administer the 'united economic space' grants
Ukraine and its 49 million people only 9.9 per cent of votes, while it gives
Russia and its 140 million people 83 per cent.

That gross imbalance in representation is a shameful betrayal of
Ukraine's sovereignty. It is a deal that can only have been agreed to as
the price of Russian support for Ukraine's President Leonid Kuchma as
he desperately seeks to extend his presidency beyond the two-term limit
that he faces this year.

My opposition to the 'united economic space' is not opposition
to Russia. The more Ukraine trades abroad, the better; if more of that
open trade goes Russia's way, so be it. But that trade should reflect that
Ukraine is competing with the world, unconstrained by a private deal
that excludes outsiders and their demands for a stable and predictable
legal environment and the best business practices.

I am not one of those people who think Russia is so naturally
collectivist that free trade and an open economy cannot work there. Nor
do I believe that Russia is so inherently autocratic that democracy must
invariably fail. But I do believe that, for these canards to be discarded,
Russia and Ukraine must open themselves to global competition, not
isolate themselves with each other.

Mr Dmitri Likhachev, one of Russia's most respected
intellectuals in the communist era, said that there is no such thing as the
Russian soul - 'we can create whatever future we want'. Ukraine and
Russia, too, can create the future they want, but not by closing themselves
off in a 'united economic space' that, in reality, is nothing more than
another dark corner. (END) (ARTUIS)